SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9756, 4 September 1917, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

IN DIVORCE . —— UNDEFENDED CASES HEARD YESTERDAY. Mr Justice Husking occupied the Bench in the Supreme Court yesterday for the purpose of hearing undefended divorce cases. A BLACKSMITH’S DESERTION- •- Annie Alicia : Mackey (nee Richards) applied for. a dissolution of her marriage* with Duncan Mackey on the ground of desertion. . Mr E. C. Levvey 'appeared for the petitioner, an elderly woman, who stated that she was; married in Feilding in 1891. They had. four children. In 1904 a separation order was made, the respondent being adjudged to pay 25s a week. The resipondent neglected to pay her anything. He had been drinking constantly. Ho was a blacksmith, and thlough ht> worked at times he wasted hia means. She had maintained herself and children by dressmaking. A. daughter of the petitioner gave corroborative evidence. A decree nisi was granted, which May be made absolute in three months. A BOILERMAKER’S PETITION. ’ Alfred John Lacey petitioned against Mary Jane Lacey (formerly Paton), on the ground of adultery, William Beattie being joined as corespondent in the suit. Mr E. C. Levvey appeared for the petitioner. The co-respohdeht had . filed an answer, which was withdrawn before the case was set down. A clerk of the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, produced an order dated November sth, 1906, of maintenance by consent; and an order on August Slat, 1916, cancelling the first one. He also produced an information by the respondent against the co-respondent .for. affiliation. The petitioner, a boilermaker, stated that he was married in September, 1903. There were two children. There was a. disagreement in 1906, and his wife and he separated. In 1916 ha beard of the proceedings taken by Ms wife against the correspondent, and in consequence the maintenance order against him was cancelled. When in court in connection with that matter he spoke to his wife—the first time tor eight years. The case had Been dismissed without prejudice. ELis Honour declined to take the magistrate’s notes as evidence in the case, and reserved his decision. IMPORTANT WITNESS DEAD. In the case of Elizabeth Lane v, Harold' Gordon Lane, Mr F. W. Johnston (Christchurch) appeared. The evidence against the respondent, Mk Johnston said, was that he had gone to/the Pier Hotel, in May, 1916, with a /woman he had passed off as his wife. Unfortunately the main witness was a housemaid who had died, but admia(fions had been made by th© respondent to. the petitioner’s sister.. , •’ ''.The petitioner stated, that two year* .after theimarriage the respondent hefglectodher. They were living at hia father’s hotel, and witness helped in the housework. Afterwards they left the hotel and witness went to live with ■ her husband for three months, i Then she appealed to Mr Bishop, S.M., /Christchurch, and for a time her husi band . paid her £1 a week. Atteri wards, when he fell into arrears, an j order was made against him. ’ In the j meantime he had become a motor salesj ’man. She came'ti> Wellington in j search of employment, and in consequence of what she learnt had taken place at the Pier ,Hotel,’..sheJdecided' on proceedings for divorce. In September, 1916, she heard that the respondent was proceeding to Australia,, and she took out an order for increased maintenance and security. She had not spoken to her husband for two years. She saw him one day strolling down Lambton quay with a lady cm his arm. Helen Knight wife of Charles Knight, of Christchurch, and sister of the petitioner, stated that she caugb's the respondent with a lady on his knee in the bachelor apartments of a friend of. his. Afterwards he told her no/t to make any fuss about the matter, as he had hopes of living with his wife again. He .promised to "go straight” If nothing were said. After the Pier Hotel episode she met him in Christchurch and said to Mm, "You ‘ are a beauty. What about your premise to go straight?” He asked what she ivtu; inferring to, and. she said he had passed off another woman as his wife. He thereupon got into a rage and said, "I know I did, but what the d— — has it got to do with yon ? I shall ■do as I like, and your sister can do the same.” . ’ His Honour reserved his j decision in the case to so© whether tlio admission of the husband could be accepted as a true one. DECISIONS DEFERRED. Alice Erickson applied on the ground of desertion for the dissolution of her marriage with Edwiard Ericksen. Mr Pragnell appeared foir the petitioner. It appeared that th<* parties, who were married in Novemb<ar, 1900, separated five years ago anid the respondent was sued at Pahiatua for maintenance. He paid £1 n week for a time, but gradually fell? into arrears and ultimately found bis way into gaol for disobeying the order of the magistrate. There were six children, and fou»- boys were put ilnt© * school. Two girls were kept by respondent. His Honour deferred his decision for the production of the records of magisterial proceedings. , In ■ the case of Sena Pedersen v. Peter Petersen, adultery was alleged. Mr Pragnell for the petitioner said he would have to rely on a written confession of misconduct. Judgment was reserved. AN INDEFINITE ADJOURNMENT. . Desertion was tiny ground of the application of Jamas Alexander Hume against Conielia Hume. Mr Pragnell appeared for the petitioner. The case for the petitioner was that the parties were married in; 1903, and in 1909 he suspected her /relations , with other men. ■ He charged the respondent with unfaithfulness /and she then It. - Mm. He had. not sqhn her for five years. _ His Honour said he would require more evidence as to the cause of separation. It might bo a pre-arranged affair. / . The case was adjourned, indefinitely., A SO/uDIER’S PETITION. John Keenan Henry (for whom Mr Erins appeared} petitioned for divorce from Hilda Harnett Henry on the. ground ot her misconduct with a man named Jackson. It appealed that the parties belonged to Palmerston North,

the petitioner now being a private in th« Slst Reinforcements at Featherston camp. The respondent, on being taxed with inconstancy, went her own way and had served as an employee in marble bars. She had sued petitioner for separation and maintenance on the ground of persistent cruelty, but the magistrate before whom she appeared refused to make an order. Several witnesses having been examined, a decree nisi was granted, with £2O costs, against the co-respondent. MOTOR ENGINEER’S COMPLAINT. Mr G. G. Watson appeared on behalf of Henry John Masson, who sued Mary Isabel Masson, with Alfred Imrio as co-respondent. The petitioner stated that he wag a motor engineer and was married in June, 1914. They were living at Carterton, and in Februaiy of this year tbe respondent, declaring the place too slow for her, came to Wellington. Witness then heard that she was continually in the company of the respondent, and when she was taxed with misconduct she ultimately made a written confession. Since the proceedings had been instituted. she wanted to go back to him “even as his housekeeper.”A decree nisi was granted with costs against co-respondent (£2O). The court adjourned Until Wednesday.